NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin was founder of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center--now the Rubin Center--and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.rubincenter.org.

In order to save water, in a place where there has never been a real water shortage, the local government requires the installation of low-flow toilets in all homes. Unfortunately, though, these toilets tend to become stuffed up even when treated with the utmost care. This annoying problem happens repeatedly. Sometimes it can be fixed by flushing multiple times or using the plunger; at other times nothing works.

When all else failed, the plumber is summoned and arrives for an expensive service call. After fixing the toilet, he explains as he takes the check, "This is how I make a lot of money nowadays. You might," he laughs, "be surprised to learn that I voted for Obama."

But, he adds, apologetically, "I always explain to people that they should flush twice as much in order to avoid this problem."

What a perfect metaphor: Without any great need to do so, government mandates what kind of toilets people must have. The supposed purpose is to save water, though there is no shortage. And the result is that it costs everyone more money, does more damage to the environment, and even uses even more water!

How could one possibly explain the contemporary U.S. political, economic, and social situation better?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

This is the kind of thing that really characterizes the situation in the Middle East. Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group even more radical than Hamas, held a rally in Gaza City which drew an estimated 100,000 people out of a population of approximately two million.

Since the Gaza population has a number of children far higher than the United States and women’s participation would also be limited, this is equivalent to a rally in the United States of, say, twenty million people.

Of course, this comparison would have to be adjusted for the short distances people would need to travel to participate in a Gaza rally, but the point is valid nonetheless. A demonstration for an extremist group in Gaza can draw something like forty times more than any possible collective activity of this sort might obtain in the United States.

Imagine how many people the Hamas regime might mobilize for a demonstration if it tried. Remember, this rally is in support of a movement that is exclusively terrorist, lacking even the comforting veneer of social welfare programs that lets groups like Hamas fool the most naive Westerners. Islamic Jihad stands for genocide against Jews, the destruction of Israel, no negotiations ever.

Not that Hamas, of course, is any great moderate force. Indeed, Hamas officials spoke at the rally, and often use Islamic Jihad as a cover. Oh, they’d say, we’re observing the ceasefire but we just can’t stop—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—Islamic Jihad from launching those rockets.

Think of the world view held by the participants and the huge number of Hamas and even Fatah supporters regarding how things work, what America is like, what Israel is like, or the most basic concepts of logic and reality held by Westerners. There is an enormous gulf here which will only be bridged many decades from now.

The demonstrators chanted, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” These aren’t metaphors: They mean it. So do Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood groups, and many others. In fact, so do the governments of Iran, Syria, and several more.

The New York Times--you know, it's sort of like National Public Radio but with printed letters on murdered trees--keeps saying it can't find any connections between IHH, the Turkish Islamist group that organized the Gaza flotilla, and terrorism. From time to time, I've published helpful hints to assist them in making these linkages. But, alas, they don't quite seem to get the picture.

Picture! Hey, that's an idea!

Ok so here's a picture (click the link for about 20 more) of peace-loving IHH activists visiting their good friends, the radical--even by comparison with Hamas!--terrorist group Islamic Jihad and trying out some of its humanitarian equipment.

The goal might be to give the IHH a better feel for what it needs to include in future "humanitarian" deliveries to the Gaza Strip. Indeed, if the IHH and its many allies succeed in getting rid of the sanctions on Gaza altogether, they could bring these things in directly on "peace activist" ships.

Note the snappy black tee-shirt worn by the IHH activist, a map including all of Israel transformed into the Islamic Republic of Palestine.

For more information on the IHH's Viva Palestina convoy and its fun time frolicking with terrorist buddies, see here. And for more evidence of IHH's past terrorist connections, see here, here, here, here, and here, and also here ... Well, you get the picture, so why doesn't the Times and so many others?

But then again "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." John Heywood, 1546.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Robin Shepherd and David Horovitz, the Jerusalem Post editor, have written important analyses of the Palestinian Authority (PA) drive to bypass negotiations, declare independence unilaterally, and gain international support for that goal. This would give the PA all the advantages of a state--leaving its hands untied to pursue a Round Two to destroy Israel--without having made any concessions or commitments.

This outcome is not inevitable--especially if there is strong U.S. opposition--but it might well be the most important issue of 2011 so it is good to study and consider now. For reasons why such an outcome can be disastrous for U.S. and Western, as well as Israel's, interests, see here.

"Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?"

Here's my answer:

From the time Hamas seized the Gaza Strip until last summer, the U.S. government supported a strategy of trying to bring down the Hamas government. It did this by both political isolation and supporting embargos to minimize Gaza's imports and exports. The idea was that weakening Gaza's economy would weaken Hamas's rule.

At the same time, by lavishing aid on the PA-ruled West Bank, the United States and its allies would show that West Bankers were much better off because they were ruled by peace-oriented moderates. In other words, West Bankers would support the PA rather than Hamas because they were materially better off; Gazans would yearn for (and support a return of) PA rule because they were much worse off.

After the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010, however, President Barack Obama declared a new policy--though he never identified it explicitly as a new policy. Now, the US would provide a lot of aid to Gaza in the belief that it became more prosperous the citizens--apparently a strengthened middle class and businessmen--would bring down the regime in Gaza. Although they never said this explicitly, the implication seemed to be that they expected something like what happened in Eastern Europe in opposition to Soviet control and Communist rule.

The aid is to go to carefully designated and monitored projects. Whether or not that goal is achieved, however, the infusion of $400 million in U.S. aid directly (plus many millions more of U.S. aid filtered through the PA for supporting civil servants in Gaza (intended to bolster their support for Fatah) will have the effect of strengthening the Hamas regime.

Aid will reduce popular discontent against Hamas while letting Hamas divert some of this aid and a lot of funds that would otherwise have been needed to do some of these projects (and buy popular support) for terrorist/military purposes.

Thus, however well-intentioned or apparently clever the new policy may seem to Washington decisionmakers, its practical effect is to strengthen Hamas; undermine any hope for Israel-Palestinian peace; and to help establish a stable, long-term radical, terrorist, Islamist, anti-Western, and genocidally minded Iranian client state on the Mediterranean coast.

And to see how upset the Egyptian government is about this institutionalization of Hamas' rule in Gaza, read this.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Michael Horesh provides the ultimate article on the Gaza Strip's economy showing how much mythology has gone into portraying it as a tragic disaster area due to you-know-who.

Note that during the 1990s' peace process era, when Palestinian violence was at low levels, tens of thousands worked in Israel bring prosperity to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Bad economic policies by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas rulers along with the refusal to make peace with Israel and the use of terrorist violence are the causes of economic problems.

Only hours ago I wrote about the Turkish regime's decision, in its official main strategy document, to drop revolutionary Islamism or Iran as threats--because they are now its allies--in the main NSC document. It was only a matter of time, I added, before they declared Israel or even the United States as threats.

It turns out that the document does in fact define Israel as the only country threatening Turkey, saying it does so by causing instability in the region and might lead countries to engage in an arms race. No, according to the regime, Iran doesn't cause instability in the region nor, by seeking nuclear weapons, is it possibly leading toward an arms race.

So is this regime in Turkey, as it also violates the sanctions on Iran and subverts other American policies, still a U.S. ally? Getting this Islamist regime out of power, through the electoral process, should be a major priority of U.S. strategy. Not doing so helps this anti-American government stay in power.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

One of the most important--perhaps the most important--indicator of Turkish government foreign policy is the National Security Council (NSC) threat assessment. The well-intended EU demand that Turkey, as a sign of its democracy, break the armed force's power over the NSC. This happened, though whether it is in the long-term interest of Turkey's democracy is still an open question.

When the army was in command, and Turkey had a generally pro-Western, secular government, the NSC listed as major threat to the country's future both Iran and revolutionary Islamist movements. But now that these alliances have been reversed, a new version has just been produced, with Iran and Islamists (the current regime loves Hamas and Hizballah) omitted.

The Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) is still listed and friction with Greece over borders in the Aegean Sea is mentioned as a challenge.

Russia, Iraq and Greece are also dropped. The draft will be approved in the next few days by the full NSC.
Yet, according to the Turkish media, the report goes far beyond just dropping enemies. Iran, along with the other four countries, is officially listed as allies with whom Turkey has a "shared vision."

It's nice that Turkey is getting along with Russia, Iraq, and Greece. But the official listing of Iran as a Turkish ally should give pause to Western policymakers, at least if they actually paid attention to such things.

Perhaps in some future report, the way things are going, the United States and Israel will be listed as the new threats, unless the current government loses next year's election.

An Egyptian Islamist cleric named Ibrahim al-Khouli is interviewed on television, with translation by MEMRI. What can we learn from his words? A lot.

"What is the nature of our relations with [the West]? They are relations of Crusader aggression against the land of Islam–in Afghanistan, in Iraq, which was destroyed and removed from history....”

Supposedly, though this is not necessary what actually happens, Jihad is supposedly only defensive. However, it is easy to portray anything as defensive by dissociating cause and effect. Why did U.S. forces go into Afghanistan? It was as a response to the September 11 attacks. If there had been no September 11 attacks U.S. forces would not have attacked Afghanistan and the Taliban would probably still be ruling there.

Iraq is somewhat more complex. But of course the first such U.S. attack, in 1991, was in response to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and at the request of the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and other Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority countries. In 2003, whether the action was rightly guided or not, it was in response to a belief that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and breaking agreements in a way that would lead to future aggression on Baghdad’s part. And that Iraqi aggression would be against other Muslim-majority countries.

A particularly fascinating line is that Iraq has been "removed from history." What does this mean? That Iraq's fate is not supposed to be a happy or peaceful or democratic country--goals certainly not achieved but which are not "supposed" to be achieved. Iraq and its people are "supposed" to be a cog in the wheel of Islamist revolution. Iraq, then, does not belong to its own people but to the will of Allah, as interpreted by the radical totalitarians. And if this means Iraqis have no "right" to live peaceful lives but must suffer decades of war, suffering, and destruction, so be it.

So here are three underlying principles that guide the radical Islamists and their allies but which Westerners wouldn’t swallow if they were presented openly and directly:

--They have the right to attack the West but the West has no right to defend itself.

--They will pretend that the battle is one of the West against the Muslims, while actually it is a battle among Muslims in which the West might help defend one group of Muslims against another.

--Their goal is to use Jihad to defeat the West simultaneously with using lies and guilt to make the West so afraid of offending Islam that it doesn't interfere while Islamists take over the Muslim-majority world.

(By the way, always note that Israel is only one issue among many and often nowadays is pretty secondary. One reason is the importance of other issues; another is the general Islamist assumption that after they take over Muslim-majority countries and chase out Western influence, disposing of Israel would be pretty easy and thus that task can wait for a while.)

Khouli continues:

"Forget about [Usama] bin Laden and al-Qaeda. That’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking about the jihad of the entire nation….I’m talking about jihad which is led by the Islamic scholars, and the entire nation will be mobilized for the sake of the supreme jihad. This will lead us to a confrontation....We should follow the example of the young men of the Taliban. A group of several thousands of students [Taliban] have been crushing NATO in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where are the armies of the Muslims?"

Here there are three additional lessons.

First, al-Qaida is only a portion of the problem, and the less important part at that. True, al-Qaida is the most likely group to try to attack America and its citizens or institutions abroad at present. Yet the big strategic danger for U.S. interests is the overthrow of entire countries, the plunging of millions of people into revolution or civil war. Revolution, not terrorism, is the main threat; transforming countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia into new Irans and the extension of Tehran’s power throughout the region is the big danger.

Second, the Jihadists recognize that if they are going to mobilize the masses they must first convince the people that the West is weakly in retreat and that victory is easy. Anything that enhances that impression, therefore, strengthens the revolutionaries and makes violence more--not less--likely.

Third, however, is the Islamists' disappointment that things aren't going better. He asks, “Where are the armies of the Muslims?” Because, at least up to now, revolutionary Islamists cannot persuade most Muslims to rise up, wage jihad, overthrow their rulers, wipe out Israel, and attack the West.

Why is this? Some are natural human forces of individuals preferring safety and a materially better life to sacrificing themselves. Others oppose the Islamists because they support their nationalist governments or have communal-ethnic loyalties (the Kurds, for example, or the different competing groups in Lebanon). And many simply don’t believe the revolutionary Islamist interpretation of Islam.

All of these people (except for the small minority of Christians among them) are Muslims. They know what's in the Koran and understand their own religion. Yet they do not accept what the revolutionaries tell them is the “only” proper interpretation of Islam. It is as ridiculous to say that all Muslims “must” be radical and Jihad-minded if they properly understand their own religion as it is to say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the radicals are only a tiny minority who misunderstand their own religion.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

On October 20, Taylor and Francis/Routledge published my new book, The West and The Middle East, a four-volume collection of about 100 articles by many authors on the relationship of Europe and the United States to the region. The high cost of such projects requires pricing this for libraries, companies, and institutions. But please feel free to order it for such institutions or urge them to do so. This book follows my successful three-volume collection, Political Islam, from the same publisher. We are now working on a four-volume collection on instability and security in the Middle East.

Inquiries welcome.

To request your copy of our The West and the Middle East flyer please contact:
Email: darren.amner@tandf.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 701 76036

If you've lost faith in the current administration's ability and mass media's ability to respond to Middle East developments, here's more evidence. There's a relatively new American idiomatic expression, "Ya [you] think?" Said sarcastically, it means: Wow, duh, the answer to that question is really obvious!

So consider how hidden, obscure stories [sarcasm] are being dug out by policymakers and top media. The New York Timesreports that the U.S. government is "increasingly alarmed by unrest in Lebanon, whose own fragile peace is being threatened by militant opponents of a politically charged investigation into the killing in 2005 of a former Lebanese leader."

Ya think? Lebanon has been taken over (or recaptured, if you wish) by the Iran-Syria anti-American, revolutionary Islamist, terrorist-sponsoring axis, operating largely--though by no means completely--through their client, Hizballah. Might this be of some concern for U.S. policymakers?

Four years ago, Lebanon was run by an independent-minded, pro-Western government that would have preferred peace with Israel (though it knew domestic pressures made any such action impossible), opposed Iran, and saw radical Islamism as its antagonist. Today, Lebanon has been "lost" in large part through Western (don't forget France's responsibility) weakness and inaction.

I predict that even on this latest point the administration is wrong. There isn't going to be any big conflict over any report that the Syrians murdered former Prime Minister Rafiq Harari. Everybody in Lebanon knows that Syria did so, possibly (though this is far less certain) with Hizballah's help.

But there won't be any problem if the UN-backed investigation publicly states this because everyone in Lebanon has also been intimidated into silence. Even Harari's own son, the most important Sunni Muslim leader and head of the Sunni-Christian-Druze [well, no longer Druze since they have joined the pro-Syrian side for all practical purposes] has surrendered to Damascus.

And of course there remains the question of what, if anything, this administration will do about Lebanon. Answer: Nothing, except continue to aid the army which, at best, is neutral and, at worst, is an ally of Hizballah.

Speaking of Syria and great discoveries. The Washington Postreports that Syria just doesn't seem to be responding to administration efforts to engage, moderate, and pull that country out of Iran's orbit.

Ya think?

During the last almost two years there has been example after example of Syria opposing all aspects of U.S. policy; sponsoring terrorism to kill Americans in Iraq and against Israel; sabotage the Israel-Palestinian peace process; dominate Lebanon; help Hamas and Hizballah; and build an ever-tighter alliance with Iran.

And now people in Washington are starting to notice this? So what will the administration do, end engagement with Syria and take a tough line? Ya think?

Should I mention the blindness towards the Turkish regime's entrance into the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah bloc, and the need for U.S. opposition to that government to help ensure its defeat in next year's election? Hint: In an interview Republican People's Party leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu states, "Washington is just beginning to wake up to the true nature" of the current regime. If that government ever does, it will understand that victory for Kilicdaroglu is a vital U.S. interest.

Should I mention that nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the Israel-Palestinian negotiations process is going to go nowhere because the Palestinian Authority doesn't want to make a deal with Israel. And then add that this problem is being exacerbated by U.S. policy making the PA believe this strategy can succeed fully by getting recognition for a unilateral declaration of independence?

Should I mention the new U.S. policy of engaging the Taliban is disastrous and may result in the movement that partnered the September 11 attacks against America returning to power? The New York Times published an anthropologists' op-ed explaining how the United States can coopt the Taliban and turn it against al-Qaida! Ya think?

But don't take my word for it. Ask the would-be Times Square bomber who worked with that group, or a teenager who describes how the Taliban tried to recruit him as a suicide bomber (something it will be able to do to lots more youth if it can operate legally.

And here's what New York Times reporter David Rhode wrote after spending several months as a Taliban prisoner in 2009: "Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of `al-Qaeda lite'...primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan. Living side by side with the[m], I learned that the goal [was]...to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world." Ya think?

Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?

Should I mention that most Arab governments are shocked at U.S. expressions of weakness and want a strong American policy to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists?

Should I mention that despite the praiseworthy (but overdue) increase in anti-Iran sanctions there's no doubt that Tehran will get nuclear weapons and this development will transform the strategic balance in the region?

Should I mention that the administration doesn't react to its own intelligence which shows Iran is helping kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan through training terrorists and supplying both advisors and military equipment in both countries?

Anybody in the U.S. government noticing these things and perhaps getting prepared to do something about them?

Ya think?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Today a teacher had the children play a game called "Math War." The students were given playing cards to use for setting up various problems in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Very creative.

The teacher, who has a personalized picture of the current president in the classroom, also has a very special set of playing cards for the students to use. Each one is inscribed: "Vote Obama!" Just in time for the election.

The previous week, the students were sent on a FannieMae march for the homeless. Yes, that makes sense since FannieMae had so much to do with creating the economic crisis and making people homeless. But is it appropriate for an institution which has paid executives huge amounts to smash the economy--a symbol for incompetence and greed--to be getting schools to cooperate in laundering its image?

After all, the notorious Franklin Raines, former head of the disastrous enterprise, stole millions. Why not get the money back and give that to the homeless?

After fifteen years of following the Palestinian Authority (PA) media on a daily basis, I've never seen anything that sums up the problem of why there's no peace better than this cartoon in al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official PA newspaper. If only the Western mass media ran this cartoon the situation would be crystal-clear and nobody would have any doubt who is blocking a peaceful, two-state resolution of the conflict.

In the cartoon, a young boy is being instructed in the Arabic alphabet by the teacher. But even before he starts with the letters, the very basis of his world view and knowledge is presented (in his thought balloon) as this: All of Israel must be replaced by Palestine. See the map on the right side of the balloon, remembering Arabic is read from right to left. This goal is presented as the foundation stone, the guiding light, the very basis of Palestinian thought and identity.

Nor is that all. On the desk, his pen has become a slingshot (symbolizing that violent struggle trumps education) with stones.

Not exactly: Hey kids! Stay in school, get a good education, help build a peaceful, prosperous Palestine living as a neighbor to Israel!

Remember, too, this is a PA newspaper. If "President" Mahmoud Abbas wanted to do so, which he doesn't, he could pick up the phone and tell the editor to stop it. We aren't talking about a broad spectrum of permissible belief or free competition of ideas here. Everything in the newspaper is what the PA wants to convey, indeed indoctrinate, its subjects and supporters to believe.

This context also explains why unilaterally declaring a state, rather than getting one through a negotiated agreement, is so attractive for the PA, allowing it to have its state and eat Israel, too. No negotiations, concessions, obligations, commitment to end the conflict, or to accept Israel's existence would be needed. Meanwhile, the next generation is being prepared what might be called--to borrow a Star Wars title--Episode 2: Return of the Jihadi.

How can a Palestinian government, media, and educational system that presents the struggle to wipe Israel off the map as the most fundamental principle of existence, the touchstone of national identity, possibly make peace with Israel? How could leaders, even if they wanted to do so, persuade their people to compromise when they have been brought up on ideas like this?

The situation is not one of Palestinians--at least in terms of public life, politics, and society--desperately yearning for a state of their own, a higher standard of living, the end of "occupation," a better life for their children, and the dismantlement of Jewish settlements. In reality, the situation is of Palestinians being taught, told, and led to believe that the only worth goal is one of total victory.

In this context, peace is betrayal, compromise is cowardice, a treason to be punished by dishonor or death. Turning kids into cannon fodder is the top priority, not only for Hamas but even for the PA.

One picture is worth a thousand martyrs.

PS:

Here's another example of the kind of people the PA admires as heroes--terrorists who attacked Israeli civilians. And here are more examples of claiming all of Israel as official policy. And PA television programming presenting Tel Aviv as a settlement.

And this is what happens when a woman in Ramallah writes questioning whether violence helps the Palestinians and opposing Islamization. The Palestinian reporter asks her: "You declared yourself a Palestinian. Many, however, view the things you write as offensive and hostile to Islam. What makes people question your Palestinian identity and accuse you of being hostile to Islam?"

In other words, if you don't want Hamas, prefer a more secular society, and want a two-state solution, how can you call yourself a Palestinian or Muslim at all?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

This book examines the decade in office of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its efforts to transform the Turkish republic toward a more Islamist-oriented system. If it succeeds, Turkey’s dramatic shift will be the most important change in the Middle East power balance since the 1979 Iranian revolution and will have equally devastating effects on Western interests.

For more than 80 years Turkey has been ruled by the secular democratic structures created by Kemal Ataturk. Now, however, the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its series of electoral victories are creating a new system.

While portraying itself as a centre-right reform party, the AKP has been accused of having an Islamist agenda. After almost a decade in power, there is serious evidence that this claim is true. At home, the AKP has been changing basic Turkish attitudes and institutions, from buying up a large portion of the country’s media to revising its laws, and even taking the lead in the writing of a new constitution.

Internationally, Turkey has moved away from the West and Israel and toward Iran and radical Islamist groups. While its intentions—and ability to fulfil them—are still unclear, the AKP has been leading the most important transformation of Turkey since the formation of the republic after World War I. This book systematically examines the AKP’s ideology, support base, actions in office, and goals. This book was published as a special issue of Turkish Studies.

1. Changing Values in Turkey: Religiosity and Tolerance in a Comparative Perspective Birol A. Yeşilada and Peter Noordijk 2. Justice and Development Party at the Helm: Resurgence of Islam or Restitution of the Right-of-Center Predominant Party? Ersin Kalaycıoğlu 3. Dismantling Turkey: Will of the People? Nur Bilge Criss 4. Transformation of Turkish Islamism and the Rise of the Justice and Development Party Mustafa Şen 5. An Unfulfilled Promise of Enlightenment – Kemalism and its Liberal Critics Halil Karaveli 6. A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges Ahmet Sözen

Monday, October 25, 2010

What could be more routine than those little notes countries send other countries to say Happy Birthday? Yet even here there’s a sort of strangeness about the current U.S. government’s approach to the Middle East .

On October 25, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent national day greetings to Austria , not exactly among the big international players. Yet in these 187 words, the State Department found space to praise Austrian Middle East policy. What did Vienna do that was so great? Support U.S. strategic aims? Back sanctions against Iran? Cooperate in counterterrorism efforts? Assist U.S. forces in Afghanistan or Iraq ?

Well, here’s what Clinton said:

“From the Balkans to the Middle East , Austrians have proven their commitment to equality, economic prosperity, and justice for all people.”

This seems like a page fell out of the domestic policy book. Equality? You mean that Austria conducted a campaign for fairness to women or Christians, Kurds or Berbers in Muslim-majority countries? Economic prosperity? Did it buy a lot of oil? Justice? Did Austria battle the Taliban and terrorists in Iraq , or do something on behalf of promoting democracy? Or perhaps it supported healthcare reform and a stimulus package in Morocco ?

Nothing against Austria here, but have U.S. strategic interests vanished from the face of the earth? Not long ago people were making fun of George W. Bush for trying to export democracy to those who didn’t necessarily want it. Now the Obama administrations wants to export "equality, economic prosperity, and justice for all people."

A little later, Clinton thanked the Austrian government for supporting sanctions against Iran and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. But that doesn't explain the weird national day greetings.

How can I possibly resist this one? Dr. Aleida Guevara, daughter of Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara, visited Lebanon recently and voiced support for Hizballah. Guevara, who works at a children’s hospital in Havana , laid a wreath at the tomb of Hizballah leader Abbas Al-Musawi.

No, she wasn’t wearing the tee-shirt.

The Hizballah official escorting her explained, “We are conducting resistance for the sake of liberty and justice, and to liberate our land and people from the Zionist occupation, which receives all the aid it needs from the U.S. administration."

Guevara responded: "I think that as long as their memory remains within us, we will have more strength, and that strength will grow and develop, until we make great achievements and complete our journey to certain victory….If we do not conduct resistance, we will disappear from the face of the earth. It is the only way to prevail and to continue on our path forward."

What does that mean, we will "disappear"? Will the United States and Israel commit genocide and wipe out all of the Muslims and Cubans? And resistance to what? Democracy, equality for women, peace?

The mayor of Baalbek , Hashem Othman, chimed in: "Che, the hero, is the symbol of Cuban resistance. We and you stand together against injustice."

Where are Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin when you need them? They might have said, “The reactionary clerical-fascist forces try to fool the working class through the opiate of religious demagoguery. But the proletariat will continue to fight against these evil minions of the bourgeoisie and institute a new secular Communist society!”

Yes, I made that up but they would have said something like that about Hizballah. Oh, I didn't have to make anything up. Here's Lenin!: "Religion is a sort of spiritual booze...."

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Hizballah's spiritual guide, advised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in a letter: "It is clear to everyone that communism should henceforth be sought in world museums of political history" and advised him to study the Koran and become a Muslim.

Not since the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, which emboldened Adolf Hitler to launch World War Two, however, have we seen such a convergence of the “left” http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39503revolutionaries and the “right” revolutionaries.

If Che Guevara had been a Muslim, Hizballah would have executed him.

I can only wish that all the Hizballah members had to live in a Marxist state and all the Marxists (and their spiritual heirs) in an Islamist state.

Oh, right, there was a little war in Afghanistan about that.

OK, I’ll stop here since neither sarcasm nor satire suffices in the situations we face in this wacky era of ours.

But for a hysterical story about the last time there was an attempt to make an Islamist-Che synthesis, see here.

The U.S. Consulate-General in Saudi Arabia "hosted Dr. Trita Parsi, founder and President of the National Iranian American Council.....Dr. Parsi chaired a roundtable luncheon hosted by CG [Consul-General] Tom Duffy. This event was very well-received by the audience, a mix of prominent academics, businesspeople, journalists, and intellectuals. There was significant audience participation and interest in the topic."

According to Parsi's own site, to which the official U.S. site helpfully sends you, "Dr. Parsi was invited to speak and share his expertise on U.S.-Iranian relations and Iranian politics during the first week of October at several events in Riyadh, Dharan and Jeddah." The official U.S. consulate site tries to pretend that Parsi is actually some kind of noted scholar whereas his claim to fame consists almost entirely in convincing the repressive Tehran dictatorship to back him.

The U.S. State Department recently also organized a paid tour for the imam of the "Ground Zero" mosque who rejects U.S. policy toward Hamas, blames America for the September 11 attack, and claims the United States has murdered large numbers of innocent Muslims.

Under what program is all this done?

"As part of the US government’s public affairs outreach, the State Department tours prominent US-based experts and academics in the region to provide an opportunity for officials from foreign ministries, academics, journalists, and members of the business community to engage with them."

Parsi has been the leading lobbyist in America for the Iranian Islamist regime and, at least until last year's election, was also an apologist for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He worked actively (in partnership with the anti-Israel front group J Street, no less) to stop U.S. sanctions on Iran.

And this is the man who the State Department sponsored in Saudi Arabia? What must the Saudis have thought? I'll tell you:

Aha, the Americans pretend to oppose Tehran but in fact they are playing a double game, making a deal with that regime. Well, if the Americans are backing Iran we better appease the Iranians real fast before it is too late.

It has become fashionable to compare the current situation in the world with the experiences of Nazism and World War Two. There are some parallels, of course, worth exploring. But a more likely model for the next period in world history is more likely to be that of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

The future of the confrontation between Islamism and the governments of Muslim-majority states as well as Israel and the West is more likely not going to be some terrible but relatively brief shooting war for several reasons.

Iran, the closest thing to a leader of revolutionary Islamism, is far less strong and bold than Nazi Germany. It is unlikely to offer the West an occasion for direct, conventional war. It is very strong in the elements of ideology, client groups, and ideological appeal. As in the USSR's case, Iran will more likely use nuclear weapons as a shield rather than a vehicle for attack. And also, as in the Cold War, there will be many independent or semi-independent revolutionary groups in dozens of countries stirring up trouble.

In contrast to the Cold War era, however, the West has no taste for such a confrontation and would avoid waging this struggle as much as possible. Equally, the revolutionary forces are diverse, including even anti-Iran Islamists, and conditions vary in each country.

The key year here, then, is not 1939, when Germany launched war, but the far less-well-known year of 1946, when most of the West had not yet awoken to face the challenge and was riddled with apologists and would-be appeasers. America and Western Europe were exhausted from too many battles, the former faced with a potential retreat from world leadership, the latter preoccupied with economic troubles.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom has a great leader named Winston Churchill, who had just left office, and the United States has a tough, feisty Democrat named Harry S. Truman as president. You can do the comparisons to today without my help.
In his famous Fulton, Missouri, speech in front of Truman, Churchill sounded the challenge for both countries:

"The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power.,,,For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future....You must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement....To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of [future generations]."

There were Communists in eastern London then, just as there are Islamists ruling some of the same neighborhoods today. Churchill and Truman were accused of being anti-Communists, the equivalent of "Islamophobia" in that area. A large section of the media and academic, though smaller than the equivalent today, were against them. They weren't intimidated.

The Cold War lasted about 55 years, compared to less than six for World War Two and only twelve if the whole span of Nazi Germany is included. It involved a large number of fronts around the world, often with totally different conflicts going on simultaneously. The fact that the USSR had nuclear weapons actually lengthened the epoch and made direct combat out of the question.

Once Germany invaded Poland and once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was easy to know that the war had to be fought, though of course it was a difficult battle. Yet the course ahead was clear, the enemy undeniable.

The choices faced today are far more difficult and complex and far more closely resembles the Cold War.

The Cold War was fought with a wide variety of tools ranging from ideological to economic, revolutions to civil wars, covert clashes and rapid changes of fortunes for the two sides. Alliances were made and broken; satellites won and lost. It was what President John F. Kennedy called a “long twilight struggle, year in and year out.” Courage and endurance, two qualities in lamentably short supply in the West, will be required in great quantities.

Kennedy also emphasized the need to fight against poverty, the importance of the UN, and the value of offering peace to enemies that might accept it, all concepts that are incorporated into contemporary policy. But going through the checklist of what Kennedy said in his inaugural address, we can see what is still lacking from American and European leaders and dominant world views today:

"The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans...proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

--Americans must be disciplined, hardy, patriotic (rather than ashamed and apologetic); ready to defend human rights, rather than define them out of existence through a bogus Multiculturalism.

Consider how this would have played out during the Cold War: Brutal dictatorship, slave-labor camps, aggressive domination of neighbors, isn’t that all part of the Russian way of life that’s equally valid as is a democratic system? Aren’t all those Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary, culturally incapable of freedom?

"To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder."

--Loyalty to traditional allies, rather than often dissing them in order to court enemies.

To the Third World, "we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

--Defending those imperiled by the aggressive dictatorships and fashionable tyrannical ideology of the day rather than not even being willing to discuss the nature of the threat. What this means for today is decisive U.S. leadership of European countries, relatively moderate Arabic-speaking states and Israel in the Middle East, and other Third World nations menaced by extremism in the form of radical Islamist ideologies or radical regimes into a strong and confident alliance.

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary...we dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed"

--An understanding that weakness on our side breeds aggression on the other side. That certainly was a lesson taught over and over again in the Cold War.

The Cold War required supporting regimes that were themselves oppressive in order to defeat the great threat. Sometimes this was necessary. Sometimes this was mistaken. But there is one mistake that is forever unpardonable. And that great, tragic, and unforgiveable error is to ignore, much less vilify, the lesson that Churchill reminds us of:

"Last time I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention."

Maybe it's time for President Barack Obama, despite the experiences of his ancestors in the Kenyan revolt against Britain, to retrieve that bust of Winston Churchill for his office that he so hastily returned to London.

Only decades hence will it be possible to judge which model, in terms of type of struggle and of the Western response, took place. But I bet that this is going to be a long, complicated Cold War-type conflict with numerous different kinds of struggles, varying considerably from place to place and going on for a very long time. Not being engaged in a shooting war will make it easier to deny that any war is going on.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

The firing of Juan Williams by NPR is important for a dozen reasons--violation of free speech; a demonstration of NPR's leftist bias; Political (In)Correctness run wild; an insanely ridiculous example of the inability to deal with Islamism; and so on.

But there's one aspect that has not been addressed. The attack on Williams is the first big leftist attack designed to demonize, destroy, and silence a certified liberal. Well, perhaps not the first ever but the first really understood and highly publicized one.

Up until now, of course, conservatives have been often demonized and, given liberal suspicion toward that side of the political spectrum, many liberals have believed whatever they've been told by often highly partisan and dishonest sources, failing to insist on fair play. Ridicule Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, or others, and moderate, traditional liberals will accept it without checking quotes, listening to responses, or demanding accuracy. If someone is being wrong, silly, or racist, say so. But first check it out to make sure that's true.

Such caution and care is rare nowadays. Up until now, a lot of people have been happy to see those they didn't like being bashed--fairly or otherwise--without asking too many questions. The same standards of accuracy and fairness should be applied to everyone. Then if you hear that someone said or did something outrageous you know that it's true and not just a smear.

Yet these are precisely the qualities that have declined as all too much of academia and journalism have turned into partisan propaganda outlets rather than places where people struggle for objectivity and accuracy in the search for truth.

Western society depends on open discussion and reliable watchdog institutions to preserve democracy, come up with the best possible ideas, and maintain civility. But now due to ideology and arrogance, the left-pretending-to-be-liberals has gone too far. People who have swallowed all of the often-false claims about conservatives--their ideological and political rivals--start to ask questions. Up until now, the majority of moderate liberals have said, in effect, that it didn't matter if "bad" people were treated unfairly.

An analogy here is the way that Republicans and conservatives were generally tolerant toward McCarthyism between 1950, when McCarthy went after the Truman Administration and liberals, until 1954 when the senator attacked the U.S. army, the respected General George Marshall, and even President Dwight Eisenhower himself, in a way that exposed his recklessness and the fact that anyone could be accused of treason.

The only thing worse than a witch hunt is a witch hunt being cynically manipulated to intimidate large social groups, open discussion, and courageous individuals. Today, one cannot help but once again hear the echoes of Martin Niemoller's famous statement which ends, "Then they came for me/and by that time no one was left to speak up." Thus, moderate liberals may well laugh when they hear Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, who has been smeared, whatever her very real shortcomings, say, "I'm you." But for real liberals, Juan Williams does fit that description.

Here's how the liberal media critic Howard Kurtz responds to the Williams' case:

“This was a blunder of enormous proportions. Even many liberals--Donna Brazile, Joan Walsh, Whoopi Goldberg--are castigating National Public Radio for throwing Williams overboard....His firing has backfired...making Williams a symbol of liberal intolerance....”

But that's not all! Kurtz criticized NPR for accepting Soros money and criticized the New York Times for--as it all too frequently does--twisting a story ideologically and leaving out key elements for partisan purpose:

"Yesterday was the day that NPR announced a new grant—$1.8 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 new reporters. No news organization should accept that kind of check from a committed ideologue of any stripe. Even if every journalist hired with the cash from Soros’ foundation is fair and balanced, to coin a phrase, the perception is terrible. (This New York Times story didn’t even mention Soros’ liberal views. The guy just gave a million bucks to [the left-wing site] Media Matters. Hello?)"

Incidentally, the problem isn't just that Soros is an "ideologue" but also that he is a controversial person who shouldy be subject to journalistic investigation, as well as critical news coverage, himself. This should also raise the question of Soros buying uncritical or positive media coverage for himself. But back to Williams.

The closer one examines the Williams' incident the more horrifying it is. For example, in an interview, Vivian Schiller, the NPR official who fired Williams cited, as one of his previous offenses that should have gotten him fired, that Williams made fun of Michelle Obama, suggesting it would hurt her husband if she went on behaving like, his term, Stokely Carmichael [a radical "Black Power" activist of the 1960s and 1970s) in a dress.

Schiller also suggested that Williams should not speak publicly about his views but confine them to conversations with his psychiatrist, thus simultaneously insulting Williams and exposing how NPR officials want to stifle free speech, even in other news media. In other remarks, NPR official statements said that Williams had violated the network's political "line," thus admitting that this tax-supported station is an ideological political organ.

On top of this, Williams is one of America's most seasoned, respected, and articulate African-American journalists. So charges of racism are not going to stick here. He is also a powerful spokesman for reasonable, moderate, non-radical liberal viewpoints. If he has to go work for Fox to voice them, that's a message in itself.

One can hear such points being made often in the Washington Post and suddenly there are more and more journalists who are fed up with having to act like partisan lap-dogs. But where are the moderate liberal, anti-radical blogs, outspoken intellectuals, and mass media saying that they don't think either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin are the best choices for America? Or that patriotism and a strong foreign policy should not be the monopoly of the right? Or that the size of government, level of spending, and extent of taxes should be limited in order to get out of this recession but they have their own priorities and ideas for how to do this?

Make no mistake, the Williams case is a landmark in getting real liberals to realize the extent that their institutions have been taken over by the far left, which has used this power to trash professional ethics and transform entertainment, educational, and media institutions into organs of lies and indoctrination. Coupled with the coming Democratic defeats at the polls, it reminds real, moderate liberals that being pushed too far to the left is suicidal. None of them are safe, as intellectuals or as politicians from attack and unemployment, respectively.

This is not mainly a liberals versus conservatives battle, it is a struggle between the far left--sometimes allied but always soft regarding radical anti-American forces abroad--against both real liberals and non-extremist conservatives. If radical forces abroad are going to be countered and defeated, this battle is going to have to be fought, too. The Williams' case defines the issues precisely.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

The following article appears in PajamasMedia and is reproduced here for your convenience, with some improvements.

By Barry Rubin

One of the main features of this sick, sad era in international relations is that hugely important developments are ignored, having no effect on Western policy. Here’s one such case: Indian investigators have confirmed that Pakistani intelligence was deeply involved in the massive, bloody Mumbai terror attack in 2008, killing 166 people.

The story should be on the front page of every Western newspaper.

This Pakistani involvement has long been suspected but now there is strong evidence on the record. Just think of it: Pakistan is a huge U.S. aid recipient. It suffers no consequence of being a sponsor of terrorism, not only in this case against India but also repeatedly in previous attacks and in helping terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

Yet there is something in the strategy of ignoring this problem that fits into the broader strategy of the Obama Administration: buy short-term quiet and apparent popularity at the price of strategic decline and future crises. Let’s go through the Mumbai story and then look at the bigger picture.

The group carrying out the Mumbai attack was Lashkar-e-Taiba, an organization completely dependent on Pakistani financing, training, arming, and safe haven.

Now, U.S. officials have new and dramatic evidence of this because the source for the information is an American in U.S. custody. His name is David Headley, who has pleaded guilty in a federal court of involvement in the attack and is cooperating with the government. He has detailed how officers from the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, Pakistan’s notorious intelligence force, helped carry out the raid.

According to Headley, as recorded in a report on the interrogation, the Pakistanis directed and funded the group. In Headley’s case, he was trained as a spy, paid, and sent to India where he took photos and videos of potential places for attack. The material was turned over to the group’s intelligence liaison who then suggested where and how to kill lots of people, including American citizens staying in hotels and the office of the Jewish Chabad group.

This should lead to a major crisis in U.S.-Pakistan relations. Regardless of the fact that Pakistan is “helping” the United States against al-Qaida and the Taliban. But wait! How much is it helping? U.S. officials have also reported that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the Taliban in killing Americans in Pakistan and not working all that hard to find Usama bin Ladin and his friends.

Now let’s be clear. There is a genuine policy dilemma for the United States, the need to balance Pakistani help against Pakistani sabotage of U.S. policy and terrorism. The point is that the Mumbai information should be the last straw, showing the need for some confrontation.

Yes, the popularity of the United States might decline a few percentage points in Pakistan. There might even be—shudder!—tension. Yet it is time for the U.S. government to demand full cooperation, a change in Pakistani behavior, turning over all the wanted terrorists and their handlers to India, or else the United States will take serious action.

Or does the Obama Administration want to be an ally of those who murdered 166 people in Mumbai, the equivalent of backing those who carried out the September 11, Lockerbie, Spanish train, and British underground bombings?

Oh, wait! The U.S. government is now advocating and helping the Afghan government negotiate with the Taliban, the partner in the September 11 attacks. How can this be justified: Easily, by claiming that there are forces in the Taliban that can be moderated. Of course, the problem this isn’t true.

Combined with naiveté and ignorance, what are the other factors in this move? Well, if the Taliban makes some kind of truce or reduces its fighting, the Obama Administration can withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and claim victory, or at least stability, has been attained. This, however, would just set the scene for a strengthened Taliban and far more fighting soon after U.S. combat troops leave.

Yet this isn’t the first time such a strategy has been used by the Obama Administration. It ended efforts to subvert the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip and also continues engagement with Syria despite that country’s continued anti-American extremism. While the governments in Venezuela and Turkey trounce U.S. interests, this is also ignored.

Other examples can be cited of this approach toward such disparate countries as Russia, North Korea, and others, as well as benign neglect of problems like the fact that Iraq is suffering from a huge political crisis of having no government at all. In the UN Human Rights Committee, despite the domination of radical states and no change from past misdeeds, the administration justifies its decision to join by pretending there are no problems at all.

The worst problem the United States is going to face may be a political global warming, as neglected crises heat up, while tolerated radical forces set the world aflame with increased violence and aggression in the next few years.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A reader asks: "You wrote, `But if Israel defined it's final boundaries before negotiations, the Palestinian Authority [says it] would return to the talks. Israel won't do that, of course.' Why is that `of course'"?

I first joked that it was because the article was getting to be too long. In other words, I didn't have the space to discuss it. But let me explain that point now.

First, beginning with the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement, it has been clearly mutually agreed that the issue of boundaries would be settled in negotiations. Negotiations are supposed to be a give and take process: Israel would give more on boundaries if it got more on other issues. In addition, if Israelis knew they'd be getting a real, secure, and lasting peace they would be willing to offer more.

But there's also a particular negotiating trick that the Palestinian leaders have used repeatedly. Israel offers a concession saying, "If we do this, what will you give in return?" The Palestinians then say: Aha! You have offered to do this. We will give nothing in return but all future negotiations must start on the basis of you conceding this point.

That might sound ridiculous but we've seen it over and over again, tolerated by Western mediators who act.as if this is a reasonable diplomatic posture.

Remember, too, the Palestinians didn't say: Israel should put forward a negotiating position on borders. Thus, as we have seen, if Israel were to call for even minor border modifications, the Palestinians would walk out but at the same time will insist that Israel can never demand in future more than it offered in the past.

The PA has demanded the pre-1967 borders with no alterations. When at the Camp David talks of 2000 Israel put forward an offer--only as a starting point for negotiations--claiming about three percent of the West Bank in exchange for giving the Palestinians all of Gaza, 97 percent of the West Bank, and most of east Jerusalem, the Palestinians walked out and began a violent revolt.

We have been through this many times before. The Syrians have done the same thing. The most famous example was when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said at one point to Syria, through the U.S. government, OK, what if we were to accept the pre-1967 border and give a little more, what would we get in exchange?

The Syrians responded: We reject your offer but all negotiations in future must start from the point of that concession, and now we will ask for more concessions.

Instead, Israel will adhere to the formula articulated by Rabin: The extent of withdrawal will depend on the extent of what Israel is offered in exchange.

To summarize, here's a case study in Palestinian negotiating tactics:

Make a demand that might seem reasonable to outside observers.

If you get a concession, take it without giving anything in return. Reject it as an agreement but demand that it be the starting point for future negotiations.

If Israel puts forward a position that doesn't give you more than you had before, reject it and walk out of the talks. Then try to get the United States and Europe to pressure Israel into more unilateral concessions.

The situation gets so ridiculous that Tom Friedman can write a column demanding that Israel give a chance to the PA's current leadership and test its intentions. Hasn't that been going on for ten years now?

After all, why does Israel need to give another construction freeze when it just finished giving one for nine months and the PA leadership failed the test?

No doubt, if Israel gave another freeze and received nothing in exchange from the PA, or the PA even refused to talk altogether, U.S. government officials and various journalists would once again act as if this experience never happened and demand Israel make even more unilateral concessions to "test" the PA's good intentions. We've seen this happen repeatedly and, thank you very much, already know that the PA isn't eager for peace and is unwilling to compromise.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Now appearing in Pyongyang: North Korean missile; Iranian nosecone. Ain't international cooperation wonderful? Joshua Pollack, a very smart arms' expert, has just published an article and a paper on cooperation between these two countries which is well worth reading.

One point really caught my eye. Iran's news agency reported a speech given by Tehran's military attache
describing his country's military strategy as being based on “deterrence, revolutionary spirit, and tireless self-sufficiency.” Pollack notes, "These principles would sound familiar to North Koreans, for whom songun (military-first policy), deterrence, wholehearted unity, and juche (self-sufficiency and freedom of action) are national slogans.

Yes, regardless of their specific ideology and themes, these dictatorial systems have a great deal in common. Just to see North Korean Communist dictator Kim Il Sung's portrait next to that of Iranian Islamist dictator Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the photo shows the contemporary unity of totalitarian ideologies (and don't forget their apologists and followers in Western countries).

Wasn't Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bragging recently on the success of U.S. policy in defusing the North Korea nuclear threat? Wasn't President Barack Obama bragging recently on the success of U.S. policy in countering nuclear proliferation? These people don't seem too concerned as their (and, more importantly, our) enemies get together for the purpose of gobbling as much of the world as possible, smashing liberty, and destroying democracy.

We constantly see the use of the “Israel excuse” for problems and policy moves in the Middle East. The argument is repeatedly made that if only Israel settled the Palestinian issue there would be no problems, a claim also made regarding growing antisemitism in Europe.

Both Jewish history and Israeli history, however, shows that while this seems a simple and logical explanation to many observers things don’t quite work out this way. Israel withdrew from the most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the 1990s, and then completed a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The result was increased, not reduced, antagonism in some vocal Western circles and on the part of radical forces in the region.

Often, though, there is internal evidence in such statements that shows the problem goes much farther, as in the growing extremism of the Islamist regime in Turkey. Take Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s remarks in Pakistan, for example. He was complaining about the fact that the United States opposed and European countries abstained on a UN vote for a report condemning Israel over the Gaza flotilla incident.

Yet his carefully chosen words are quite chilling, echoing Iranian and Syrian rhetoric: “The powers that are trying to divide and destroy the Islamic world are known to all.”

If he wants to complain about Israel and Western support for it in this matter, he knows exactly how to do so. But to make the inflammatory remark that the West wants to “destroy the Islamic world,” which to any listener implies that they are waging a Crusader-style war against Islam, goes far beyond that.

Erdoğan is known to be excitable and demagogic, yet it should not pass notice that he and his government sound almost identical nowadays to Tehran, which has been becoming that regime’s closest ally.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

What is more inspiring than good intentions? War, well it’s just bad and everyone should be against it. We should all love everyone from all countries and groups equally, with no special pride for our own nation (hasn’t it done a lot of bad things?). Nothing is worth fighting for. Other countries and societies are precisely the same as ours and their people just want happy lives. All problems can be solved by dialogue and efforts to understand others.

It would be wonderful if the world and human beings were like this. But they aren’t. What could be more brilliant than the way the basic problem keeping all humanity from being good was expressed by Rabbi Aryeh Leib of Shpola, who spoke to the Creator in the following terms:

“Master of the universe, what do you want from your children? You have, after all, placed them in a benighted world. A world where Satan himself prances amongst them, fanning their evil inclination; where all the things that provoke fleshly desires are ranged before their very eyes, while the warnings of retribution lie hidden between the covers of some moralistic tome. You can be certain that if you had arranged things the other way around–with the place of retribution right in front of their eyes, and all the fleshly desires hidden away in some learned old book, not a single person would ever do anything wrong!”

Alas, that is not so. The rabbi explains that all humans are endowed with both an "animalistic" side and a higher spirit that wage a struggle within each individual. Life, then, is a struggle in which this balance of power is critical to determining an individual's virtue and a nation's success.

Those who fail to comprehend the difference between idealism and the real world pay the price, or others pay that price for their errors.

In this context is a sermon given by Rabbi Harold Saperstein. His activist son, Rabbi David Saperstein, has lovingly and with filial devotion, assembled his father's writings. This particular sermon is entitled “Must There Be War?” His answer: Of course not. He explains: “We read with horror of a single human sacrifice to ancient idols,” he noted, “What shall we say of this modern offering to the pagan god of war?

Those who do not fight for pacifism, "may be the murderers of your own sons,” sacrificed in needless, easily avoidable fighting. Thus, he continued, “We are pledged to destroy war.”

Of course, the rabbi gives some lip service to realists who scoff at such notions. “There are some who say, `But sometimes war is inevitable. Sometimes there arises the occasion when we must fight.’ I answer, `War is never inevitable unless you make it so.’”

But what of the argument that:

"There are causes for which it is honorable to sacrifice one's life." I answer, "Yes, there are such causes: liberty, justice, truth, peace. But war is not one of them. Give your lives for these causes, as I am willing to give mine, but do not use war as a means, for by now we should know that the issue in war is not democracy or world peace or any of those ideals for which men are willing to die. The issues are colonies and foreign investments and the profits of armament manufacturers. Are these worth the sacrifice of your life?”

And, “Others say, `There are evils worse than war.' I answer, `There are no evils worse than war.'"

War can be avoided, Saperstein claims, because of a “fundamental truth. That is that the people of no nation want war. No people wants its young men killed, its children starved, its country destroyed. If a nation is ready to fight, it is only that they are the dupes of lying propaganda, just as we are, that they feel that they are being attacked and must fight a war of defense.”

Yes, but what if the people are successfully “duped” into being willing and even eager participants in war because they believe their religion mandates it, their national interest requires it, their manhood demands it,
and victory will bring them massive benefits?

Are there such people?

Oh, I almost forgot the date of the sermon: November 11, 1936.

In his book The 'Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich, discussing events going on when Rabbi Saperstein gave his sermon, Ian Kershaw explained:

“Hitler enjoyed more personal popularity in Germany than perhaps any other world leader in history. Many scholars have sought to understand why he was so popular and thus why so many people in a modern, industrialized nation were willing to follow him into madness, barbarism, and self-destruction. Was there something special about Hitler that allowed him to control and manipulate the German people?”

Yes, a lot of things have been used to achieve that goal. These include: extremist nationalism; a thirst for revenge, ideology inculcated by systematic indoctrination; the belief that enemies are weak and easily defeated (because they believe the kind of thing Saperstein says while tearing themselves down in an orgy of self-criticism); the charismatic leader; lies and disinformation; the mobilization of religion to make war seem holy; rewards for adherents coupled with punishments for critics; state control over institutions, the belief that aggression will bring booty as rewards for the victor; and much more.

Is any of this familiar in today’s world, both in the contemporary equivalent of Saperstein and-- with many differences, but some critical essentials in common—those who laugh at their naiveté while scheming to snuff out their lives.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Please be subscriber 19,140. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Note: From today on we are counting average daily individual visitors to the site as part of our circulation--since these people are also reading the articles--rather than just subscriptions.

The Netherlands is about to be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?

After months of negotiations failed to bring about a broad cross-spectrum coalition a new government has finally been formed. The partners are the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a European liberal (that is, conservative) party, and the Christian Democratic Party, (CDA). While the VVD has been growing, the CDA has been in decline. Together they have 52 seats.

To be sure of a majority, the government will be supported from the outside by the Party for Freedom, (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, giving a grand total of 76 seats, a razor-thin majority. Another small Christian party with two seats might offer support when needed.

What makes this arrangement controversial is the role of Wilders, often described as “anti-Islam” and made into something of a bogey-man in Dutch politics. While Wilders is harderline than the two coalition parties, there is a basis for consensus among them. For example, he is tougher on regulating mosques generally and reducing immigration especially from Muslim-majority countries, but the new ruling parties support closing radical mosques and reducing immigration in general.

Yet Wilders' role has arguably undermined the conservative side since if he hadn’t run, the two other main conservative parties would have gained almost all of his votes and had a big majority.

And so Wilders is something of a distraction here, who will be used by the left to call the new government various names. But the real power resides with establishment figures, the leaders of the VVD, Mark Rutte, and of the CDA, Maxime Verhagen. Conservative and center parties received 55 percent in the elections.

Both of these parties support lower-taxes, the free market, smaller government, less government regulation, limited immigration, and friendship toward the United States and Israel, along with a tougher stance on radical Islamist groups. So while the international media is going to be focused on Wilders, the Dutch majority supports a program that might be called Wilders without the most controversial bits.

Among the key points in the new government’s program:

--Heavier punishments for repeat criminals and the hiring of more police, including a special increase in those dealing with animal-cruelty crimes (a big issue in Holland).

- Immigrants will receive Dutch citizenship for a five-year trial period during which it would be revoked and they would be deported for being convicted of any crime requiring twelve years’ imprisonment.

--A ban on the burqa, with no headscarves permitted for judges, prosecutors, or police.

--"Substantial" reductions in legal immigration.

--First-cousin marriage, common among Islamic immigrants, will be banned.

--Spending cutbacks including for the minister of defense, including a withdrawal of the Dutch forces from Afghanistan.

Will this program be implemented and will it lead to more social peace and economic stability in the Netherlands? All of Europe will be watching.

The leader of the small Christian Union party, which didn't enter the coalition, has just written an op-ed proclaiming:

"We shouldn't be silent about the dark side of Islam. Large parts of Islam still have non-negotiable objections against the most fundamental political and religious liberties. An example is that apostasy in Islam is forbidden. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have peace with Islam but it demands dialogue, debate, and even sometimes confrontation."

Even the leader of the left-wing Green (Groenlinks) party, Femke Halsema, has been emboldened to say that hardline views have broad support among Dutch Muslims and are forcibly imposed on many women and homosexuals, whose rights should be protected. Whether she thought this would help her politically in the new climate, was genuinely moved for the first time to extend her views to Muslim, as well as Christian, communities, or some combination of these factors is not clear.

What is clear is that many Dutch leaders understand that the majority finds the current situation intolerable and that some response must be made to these complaints. But will anything change?